on 5/24/01 9:12 AM, 2 at 2@vc.net wrote:
>>> This reflector is basically privately owned and administered by a
>>> board moderator for the board owner.
>
> ? What "Board"? I thought this was a computer running the Majordomo
> mail-list application.
The "board" is the reflector. They are synonyms, Rich. Board is short for
"bulletin board" as in the electronic kind.
Secondly, a computer that someone has to pay for is hosting the Majordomo
list program. Thirdly, that server has to somehow be connected to the
internet. Lastly, the domain name has to be paid for every year.
Mr. Bill Fisher, W4AN, is effectively, the "owner" of all of this hardware
whether by directly owning it or by leasing space on someone else's server.
You and I don't pay a dime for the fact that contesting.com exists. Mr.
Fisher runs it out of the goodness of his heart so that hams can have a
discussion forum. Someone has to pay the bills. Sure, Mr. Fisher probably
makes some revenue from ads on the contesting.com website. However, it
probably still doesn't cover his costs given how large the contesting.com
service is.
As such, Mr. Fisher is "god" when it comes to determining whether a list is
moderated, who the moderator is, who stays on, who gets kicked off, etc.
KM1H called Bill a word that got him removed forever. Bill has that right
as it is HIS equipment and his money.
The fact remains that if you or anyone does not like this fact, you have the
freedom to go set up your own list server and run it however you like and
include whomever you like to have on it. If you don't want to do that, then
you have to live by the rules (written or not) set by the person who is
fiscally responsible for the service. You don't let just anyone enter your
home and say and do whatever they want in your home, do you? Well, since
this reflector essentially "resides" as Bill's property the same sort of
thinking applies.
>
>>> If those that want to create a voting block to kick some one off need
>>> to buy their own board if they don't like the way this one is being
>>> administered.
>>>
>>> The man that owns the toys writes the rules.
>
> ? Apparently, there are no written rules.
They don't need to be written. They can be arbitrary. It matters not. If
you don't like the rules, whatever they are, then you have the freedom to
leave. Otherwise, deal with it. The purpose of the moderator is to keep
the discussion in line and to keep things focused on the topic at hand -
amplifiers. Many topics such as this tend to degrade into childish and
mundane tripe that most don't want to hear. I am sure some feel that even
this post is, but I am tired of seeing you belly ache about something you
have no right to belly ache over. And since you publicly will post comments
sent off list and in private, everyone is going to see this anyhow, so it
really doesn't make any difference now, does it.
>
>>> and if someone doesn't
>>> like it, they need to buy their own reflector and run it the way they
>>> want. This is not a union hall and why should the moderator have to
>>> get a vote of posters in order to wack someone's posts.
>
> ? The last time I was expelled, my sin was questioning the technical
> utterances of a self-appointed amplifier "expert". (see 9/1994 QST,
> p,72) Subsequently, the "expert's" lap-dogs mounted a letter writing
> campaign to the moderator, kevetching about me. (no pun intended)
>
Well, Rich, perhaps it is because this topic has been covered many, many
times over. You are insulting those people who agree with Tom Rauch. You
call them lap-dogs. That implies that they can't think for themselves, that
they blindly follow the views of someone else. Well, that's just plain
wrong. You can't accept that any other view other than yours may be
correct. That's fine. Opinions are good. But how many times have we heard
your comments about the 1994 issue of QST? We are tired of it and every
time it comes up another big argument ensues. We don't need another "grate"
parasitic debate here. So the moderator may have kicked you off for being
insulting by calling people who believed with Tom "lap-dogs" and you may
have been removed for starting or opening up an argument that has gone
nowhere and will go nowhere until the end of time.
>>> posting is not a right but instead a privilege for so long as one doesn't
> abuse it.
>>>
> ? It is my opinion that techno-blather on the AMPS mailing-list should
> be discussed extensively. If members get the jackboot for doing so, the
> AMPS reflector/mailing-list is destined to become a source of derision.
>
Rich, if you don't like it, then don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Posting is a privilege. If enough people complain about any of us to the
moderator, then that person has the right to eject us either permanently or
for a period of time. When Paul was the list moderator, I got kicked off
for a weekend because I started insulting Carl, KM1H. I was wrong. I
needed to cool off. Paul forced that upon me and eventually I was allowed
to return.
People that abuse their posting privileges will get removed. It is not a
stifling of discussion. If you feel that any member should be allowed to
say anything, then like I said, go start your own list. Of course, you
kinda figured out how to do that once before anyhow! :-)
I don't think anyone but you is complaining about this policy and AMPS. It
is hard for a reflector to become a source of derision with just one or even
two people.
Now, this is all I have to say on this subject. If you reply to me on this,
I will not reply either publicly or privately (since privately doesn't exist
with you).
Back to amplifiers.
73,
Jon
NA9D
-------------------------------------
Jon Ogden
NA9D (ex: KE9NA)
Member: ARRL, AMSAT, DXCC, NRA
http://www.qsl.net/ke9na
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|